A youtube user by the name of Theoretical Bullshit made a video called "Random...Necessarily", which states that God's existence and qualities must be random, and exist for no reason with no cause.
The logic behind it is that God is said to exist prior to anything else, as it was God that brought everything else into existence. So the default state of existence is that there is this being, a disembodied intelligence which exists for no reason with no cause (because to say that it existed for a reason would necessitate a greater being capable of assigning meaning to its existence). This being possesses certain qualities, for example it is omnipotent and loving to name just two. Is there anything about existence at this stage which requires this being's qualities to be what they are? No, clearly not. This being could happen to have any set of qualities, for example it could be hateful and petty, as nothing about reality requires it to be loving.
This means that there is an equal "probability" of this being possessing any combination of qualities, and therefore whatever set of qualities it happens to actually possess are by definition random.
God could just have easily been hateful, unloving, completely powerless, or any other qualities you care to imagine.
I am interested in what believers think of this.
you must be new
good luck with that. and welcome aboard! you seem pretty groovy.
This statement of truth can easily be rewritten changing very few worde to as seemingly prove the oposit opinion as truth.
Hi there and welcome!
Who's reality? God's or our's? God is and always was. In that He is and always was, perfect. Because of this there is no room there for what man perceives as imperfection. Too He is only accountable to Himself as He is and not mans perception of what He might be.
I am sure God doesn't sit around asking Himself, "why am I here? What is my purpose?" lol
As I am sure this one who did the video has done and thus prompted the video.
Once again you worship Me and claim You Know God's Reality. Please Provide Scripture Proving You Know God's Reality.
Did God Tell You His Reality - or did you Mis-Interpret a Bad Translation of the Disney Bible? Does It Involve A Pretty Photo of Jesus Saving You?
Well done. Excellent work. Congratulations on Winning!!!!!
Do You Want Your Prize?
I did not claim to know Gods reality. But in showing that it proves that none of us do. And since none of us do how can any of us assert to know as this one did that
"as nothing about reality requires it to be loving."
The answer to your question, atomswifey, is that through logical deduction we can conclude that nothing about the initial reality in which God existed requires him to be perfect, or good, or loving, or even to exist at all.
As TBS would put it, God just happens to exist and just happens to have the qualities he has, for no purpose and with no cause.
Then that would also be true of each of us, no?
After all, to the believer, God created us in his likeness. So we just happen to exist, and happen to have certain qualities for no reason at all, because that's how God is...according to the argument.
OH MY! You sounded so nice until you wrote "Once!"
I'm not a "believer" pre se.
There are some fundamental flaws in this line of logic. The trouble is that logic in and of itself, with no regard to experience is always believable. Once can construe the facts in a court of law and "prove" anything with those facts, but the experience itself can be entirely different, therefore "truth" is either represented or not.
What seems to be lacking in the argument is the acceptance of truth. The acceptance of what "is."
Regardless of its origin, a baby "is." Regardless of its origin, God "is." What is the purpose of a baby? We can make a warm and fuzzy list all day about how it brings joy, etc, but that doesn't actually give a factual detail of why it exists.
One cannot define God, because in doing so, the definition itself becomes finite, and therefore, an invalid description of God. Therefore, the only truly accurate description of God is that God "Is." To list traits and characteristics suddenly makes him human and fallible. How absurd.
The experience is that we are conscious of ourselves in a place called the universe, and that we are not alone. We are not alone neither from each other, nor the universe. Whether God exists or not, many claim to experience a "presence" that in the silence, there is stillness, and in the stillness they discover they are not alone. What this means is irrelevant. It simply "is." To know that it is, is acceptance. Acceptance brings content and understanding in time. Understanding brings knowing, and hence definable by the mind.
Logic is a concoction of human thinking. The universe is not about thinking as much as it is about know that it "is."
So says I.
On a slightly different note, I can't quite ever really get what you are on to uphisass. It's like you're speaking into a mega phone that keeps going out and I only hear bits and pieces. And I'm trying to get at what your saying, but it's just disjointed to me. Not meaning any disrepsect and all. It's probably more about me than you.
I will grow on you. Think of me as an "honest christian." ;;;;;;;;;
Yes, you've written that before. I like that idea mucho, but am just a titch skeptical. I guess I just need to put your boots on and walk in them, and figger out what the hell you're all about....
I also disagree with this conclusion.
For God to qualify as GOD, He would (by definition) be the "ultimate being". By necessity He would be either ALL good, or ALL bad, but not a mix. He would need to be in total harmony with Himself. He is not in any contradiction to Himself, or in His nature. To say otherwise, is to put human, mortal limitations on Him.
He is HOLY. His creation is flawed, due to man's fallen state. We, therefore are not qualified to "quantify" Him for that reason. Though we may not see order and purpose in what "IS", but if He IS indeed God, one DOES exist.
I can think of one off the top of my head, but I will keep it there for now.
The first problem is that word 'prior', meaning before, which simply has no meaning at the singularity. Many of these woffly rambles make Cartesian space/time assumptions that are wholly unjustified.
But I'm not a believer, so maybe that's not interesting
Does it matter what we think?
Exodus13 Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?"
14 God said to Moses, "I am who I am . [b] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "
15 God also said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites, 'The LORD, [c] the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.' This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation.
John 3:5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You[c] must be born again.' 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."
9"How can this be?" Nicodemus asked.
10"You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things? 11I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.[d] 14Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.[e]
Hopefully this will shed some light on the subject. When we lean on our own understanding confusion, misunderstanding,own interpretations can all lead to wrong direction of the human race. God has his way and his way for us is to be holy like him. We on our own can not achieve this state but God through his mercy for us gave us a way. If that is not love then I don't know what love is. The kingdom of heaven can be within.
Had he not existed prior to everything then there would be nothing; including all of us. I don't understand the constant issue with belief in something as wonderful as God but we will believe in so many other things we know absolutely nothing about.
That a Deity could exist without a cause is a necessary statement: If a Deity existed that had a cause, It would be created, It would have a creator (Its cause) and THAT would be God, not the Deity in question. If the Deity created itself, this would be circular - invoking the effect to explain the cause. Thus meaningless.
So, if God exists, God has no cause.
But to then say that God's qualities - if we are talking about a necessarily existing God, a God with no cause - can be random is also meaningless as such a Being would not be God. To be God, if God exists, is to lack no perfection; this is a fancy way of saying God could not lack any Being.
Imperfections are holes in being, they involve missing something essential. Being hateful,for example, is not the presence of a power or ability, it is an inability to love perfectly. Powerlessness is an inability to act on one's desires and will - a lack of ability. If God could lie, this would be an inability to be perfectly truthful. If God could will God out of existence (commit suicide), this would be to lack the ability to be everlasting and to have necessary being.
And so on.
If the response is, "But being truthful is an inability to lie, so lying must be an ability," I would respond that this is simply an imprecission born of common usage. In fact, truthfulness is not defined by an inability to lie, but lying is defined as a disability to tell the truth consistantly. Otherwise we could just as well define sight as an inability to be blind, which would make no rational sense and, again, be meaningless.
In essence, if you can predicate a statement to humans, who are limited and imperfect and incomplete in a relative sense, you may not transfer the same to God, who is simply unlike us. God is not a "big old man sitting on a throne" somewhere. Anthropomorphizing Deity leads to all manner of muddled thinking (such as the claims being discussed here).
Necessary Being (i.e. uncaused Being) necessarily involves the presence of all possible qualities and the absence of all possible imperfections (which are incomplete or missing qualities, by definition). So an uncaused Deity could not have random attributes and, at the same time, be God.
You seem to be using 'necessary' synonymously with 'uncaused', which is wrong. To say that something is 'necessary' is a conditional statement. A is necessary if B is true, but A is not necessary in and of itself.
And so because nothing existed outside of God, God's existence and qualities are not necessary for anything.
Also there is nothing that requires God to have the 'more perfect' set of qualities, and there is no objective measurement of what the 'more perfect' set of qualities would be.
Not really a thought is it General? But at least you tried your best.
Some of the realties of God, some of His mysteries are revealed through His Word.
Grasping the knowledge of it we can learn a great deal about the God we love and serve.
Yes it would be true of us as well Daniel. There are a few quotes of yours I would like to respond to.
So you are basically saying that a logical argument/thought process can be internally valid, but if the premises fail to correspond to reality then the whole thing could just as easily be untrue?
Without some kind of definition, the word 'God' fails to refer to anything. It becomes a meaningless piece of noise unless some definition can be given.
Accepting certain things as facts does not improve your understanding of them. Knowledge and understanding must be strived for; they don’t just fall into your lap after you’ve shown enough “acceptance”.
1. Yes, with the exception of wording change to "seem valid." In this premise, if experience/reality (I'm saying that experience is a kind of reality) yields some kind of "truth", then logic doesn't have to be "truth", though it may seem valid in and of itself.
2. Yes, we do need a reference to intelligently discuss this, so I concede this point. However, on a personal basis, if there is a God, that experience is personal, and therefore, it is about awareness, not about definitions. (To me, that is.)
3. Again, I concede this point, because you are right. It's not in keeping with the rules of the thesis you present. However, on a personal level "acceptance" is a kind of "awareness". Through awareness comes content and information. Hence, curiosity, which all becomes a step-wise motion to "striving," does it not?
One of the problems of me participating in this discussion is that I don't have the same views as the average "believer." I'm not sure that God or the universe existed one before the other, nor am I sure that the universe is God or that God is the universe. I'm aware of being a part of it, but have no idea as to it's possible meaning. Don't know that it's terribly important to me at this point.
humanity's existence and qualities must be random, and exist for no reason with no cause. we only think we have a purpose and exist for a reason, we refuse in not existing. actually, the earth is better without humans. we give a damn about too many things. humanity is a contradiction to itself.
While it makes no sense to say that humanity contradicts itself, I agree that humanity's existence and qualities are, for all practical purposes (I say this because I am a determinist and I reject the existence of certain definitions of 'random') random.
However it is the religious who believe that God created humans they way we are for a specific purpose.
I agree completely Paraglider, but it's the believers who claim things like "God existed prior to the big bang".
aka-dj you appear to be defining God in one breath, and declaring him undefinable in the next. Also I would like to know how you are defining 'good' and 'evil', because your statements make no sense under the normal use of these words.
About what? If you mean God, then I believe that every example of a God I have come across seems to be the invention of an unimaginative and ignorant mind.
I'm not going to list all of my beliefs. If you ask a more specific question then I'd be happy to answer.
A noble pursuit, but I haven't actually adopted a position on this thread, so I still need you to tell me what you're asking me to justify.
I disagree, I believe religion leads to a lack of understanding and a closed mind for most.
Yeah! I guess ! So welcome to the world ! Have a greatttt weekend !
No more boogy man stories from the ramblings of a lot of sexist men OK? God does not exist, there is not even a skeric of proof of any god, and the thought that a benevolent god could be in the world today is preposterous in light of the suffering. The only argument religionists have is "The devil in the corner" one which has been seen as laughable by thinkers for hundreds of years.
The psychology of the bible will not stand the slightest test.
The bullying threatening language supposedly used by an omniscient being is just sad, and had no valid role in describing anything other than the human condition. Nothing godlike about
jealousy and pitiful commands to worship!
If God exists ,people should stop worshipping someone so mean !
I'd have a few pointed questions for god about his omnipresence too!
I don't know what motivates other Christians but we don't fear God and you shouldn't either.
And why should I fear someone I don't believe in ? Like fearing the boogy man
Love is not, "I will only love you if you obey me"
That is conditional love, and has a whole different meaning.
First, if we are going to dicuss something, we should have at least some knowledge of the topic. When you bring up the topic of creation, and you begin to discuss the universe, we really don't have anywhere near enough information to dicuss it in a sensible way. We have no concept of what exists as far as other deminsions, or parallel universes.
Secondly, you have left out the option that Gods qualities are not random, but choice. Omnipotent demands the knowledge of good AND evil.
Thirdly, I don't claim proof of God for my belief in Him, I do so because of a relationship with Him.
I hope you find one too.
Ah MAN! They were about to be Baptized too! You messed me up! Now I've got to start over and get my groove on! Ok, lets pick up where you get the cake without the birthday card!
For God to have chosen his qualities he would have to have existed prior to his qualities, which is impossible. He also would have had to have had the quality of an effective will in order to do so anyway, so that's a second contradiction.
I have had one, and decided against continuing to worship that which does not exist.
Dany says :
Omnipotent demands the knowledge of good AND evil.
so we are omnipotent ! Good! I am right in not believing. I don't need any God. As I know what's wrong or right. Thanks for the revelation !
Not only the knowledge of good and evil, but brilliantly used out of context. Congradulations!
Here it's in its context
Danny R Hand wrote:
' First, if we are going to dicuss something, we should have at least some knowledge of the topic. When you bring up the topic of creation, and you begin to discuss the universe, we really don't have anywhere near enough information to dicuss it in a sensible way. We have no concept of what exists as far as other deminsions, or parallel universes.
Secondly, you have left out the option that Gods qualities are not random, but choice. Omnipotent demands the knowledge of good AND evil.
Thirdly, I don't claim proof of God for my belief in Him, I do so because fo a relationship with Him.
I hope you find one too. '
Do you think I used it out of context ? that phrase was a statement on its own.
Hard to have a relationship with something that does'nt exist, would'nt you say?
Impossible in reality yes.
So you were not in reality?
No I was not. Like all my religious associates I believed that I was at the time.
It might surprise you, but I'm not really into religion much. God, YES! Religion, not so much.
No god for me! I spent some years in belief systems, and about forty years trying to find out what makes humans tick, but it is the human condition projected on to an entity that I find hardest to swallow.
No proof exists for a god. I find that enough these days.
I spent 2 years of bible study in 3 languages and passed with flying colors.
No little nasty biblical god for me.
We have a special on big elephant gods?
Big is good when it comes to gods, they should be without all those nasty human traits like needing to be worshiped. The biblical god reminds me of Donald Trump!
We have a Donald Trunk!(I'm so sorry!)
Does he have a granddad called stumpy?
Someone called me?
Aiiright you rock! I bow to your greatness!
Paraglider this is Ganesha the son of Shiva.
Ganesha is considered as the destroyer of obstacles and the god of literature and poetry.
The elephant head is symbolic of his power and wisdom .
He wrote the great epic Mahabharata as it was dictated to him by the sage Vyasa.
He had a condition , told the sage you must not stop in your dictation and the sage said fine but you must understand what I am saying before writing.
Good things happen to me in the ten days we celebrate this god
You're back again! Hey Danny this is my rivival! Go back and measure the demensions and let us know how big God made them, ok?
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Just trying to be Gods advocate. Hope you don't mind?
It's good to have a god for such occasions, thank you Paraglider.
by M. T. Dremer 7 years ago
Atheists, can you make an argument for god's existence?They say that, in order to understand both sides of an issue, you must know enough that you could argue for the other side. It's a common practice in speech/debate classes. So this question is for atheists; can you make a convincing argument...
by Joseph A K Turner 8 years ago
Why do most people, whilst they acknowledge God's existence fail to live for him?The devil has done everything he can to make people think that he doesn’t exist and yet most people live for him. Most people, though they believe in God don’t live for him. Why is that?
by Jason2917 10 years ago
Would proof of God's existence alone be enough for you to worship Him?(This is not a trick question and I'm not looking for a debate. I am genuinely curious in what someone who doesn't believe in God would think. Consider it this way, if all of the sudden all of the evidence of His existence was...
by FootballNut 4 years ago
No matter what way you look at it.If God created life, then Satan the devil was born through God's creation, this makes GOD responsible for Satan's existence. So blame GOD for all things bad, instead of just shouting hallelujah and praising him or her for typical life results.If God did create...
by Chasuk 11 years ago
Specifically, the existence of Yahweh as he is typically conceived: the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, omnibenevolent Creator of the universe?Note: When I say "empirically," I am asking whether you believe that his existence can be proved _without_ resorting to faith.
by Money Man 7 years ago
What is wrong with searching for proof of God's existence?Believers are almost scared that we will not find proof of God. A typical comment from a believer when asked about God is, "God exists beyond this universe. He cannot be seen. God works in mysterious ways." The Bible...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|